On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:58 -0800, Mark Borgerson
 wrote:

>In article , 
>grizzlieantagonist{at}earthlink.net says...
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:15:49 -0800, Mark Borgerson
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >In article
, 
>> >greg1199{at}yahoo.com says...
>> >> 
>> >> Viking wrote:
>> >> > Macy's ad--men standing around, waiting obediantly
to carry what the
>> >> > woman buys. Text: "Golfers bring caddies.
Shoppers bring husbands."
>> >> >
>> >> > Let them know what you think:
>> >> >
>> >>
http://www.macys.com/catalog/syndicated/remote/remotesyndication.ognc?Brand=FDSSURVEY
>> >> 
>> >> My response to the add:
>> >> 
>> >> Despite the stated purpose of this comment box, I cannot
tell you of an
>> >> in-store experience, because I will no longer be in any
of your stores.
>> >>  Why?  I find one of your recent advertisements greatly
offensive and
>> >> insulting.  The add shows men standing around, waiting
obediantly to
>> >> carry what their wives buy. The text reads, "Golfers
bring caddies.
>> >> Shoppers bring husbands."
>> >> 
>> >> Firstly, whoever wrote that is a flat sexist who thinks of men as
>> >> little more than servants women use to do the heavy
lifting.  Also, has
>> >> it occurred to you that men do, at times, use your store?
 This will
>> >> undoubtedly come as a shock to someone dim enough to
liken married men
>> >> to golf caddies, but the floor space you use to sell men's clothing
>> >> often attracts .... men, and you arrogantly take them for
granted when
>> >> you insult them.
>> >> 
>> >> Why do you insult men in an effort to woo female
shoppers?  Is it your
>> >> opinion that women enjoy seeing men insulted?  Is it therefore your
>> >> opinion that most women, even married women, hold men in
some degree of
>> >> contempt?  What would lead you to believe such a thing about women?
>> >> 
>> >> If I receive some incentive from you, I may reconsider whether to
>> >> enter, ever again, one of your stores.  Otherwise,
Dillards is just as
>> >> good, and they don't insult men for fun and profit.
>> >> 
>> >\
>> >You could have added:   "Since when are the golfers using
the caddies'  
>> >money  to pay the greens fees?"
>> >
>> >
>> >Mark Borgerson
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> Really, BM?
>> 
>> If someone else had said what you just said, you would have responded
>> by challenging that person to prove that women use their husband's
>> money to shop in all instances.
>> 
>> And then if that person had bothered to respond that married women use
>> their husband's money to shop in MOST instances, you would have
>> responded, "That's probably true, but can you PROVE it?  And aren't
>> there a large number of unmarried female shoppers?  And besides,
>> aren't most married women at least employed PART-TIME, so who's to say
>> whose money they're spending?"
>> 
>> In the end, you would have pedanticized this secondary factual issue
>> to death in order to draw heat away from the overriding issue of
>> whether this ad was appropriate - and you probably would have found
>> some other reason to justify the ad.
>> 
>> So you're willing to allow yourself the freedom to criticize
>> women-firstism once in a while, are you?  When are you going to allow
>> others that same freedom?
>> 
>> 

>I've never tried to stop anyone from criticizing anything.  I just try
>to point out those instances when  their arguments get a bit ridiculous.
>The analogy between shoppers and  was faulty and I pointed it out.


>Thank you for filling in the details.



I didn't fill in any details.  I simply pointed out how you were
holding yourself to a different standard than you hold others, and I
still maintain that.


>>Is 'pedanticize' even a real word?  I couldn't find it in any of the
>online dictionaries.  Maybe  it only appears in those special 
>dictionaries they give to lawyers!   ;-)
>
>
>Mark Borgerson


It probably isn't a real word.  I tried to find in my dictionary a
verb form of "pedant" or "pedantic" and couldn't find one - so I
exercised some creative liberties to manufacture "pedanticize" because
it seemed to fit.


--------------------------------------
grizzlieantagonist{at}yahoo.com

"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause for tonight's
player of the game - FRAN-CIS-CO SAN-N-N-N-TOS!
    - Brian Anthony (P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium), June 11, 2004


"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites;
 in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in
proportion as their soundness and sobriety of 
 understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they
are more disposed to listen to the counsels of
 the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves.  Society
cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will
 and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the
more there must be without.  It is ordained in
 the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be
free.  Their passions forge their fetters."
     
     - Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/12/05 4:56:27 AM ---